What if tomorrow physicists unified general relativity with quantum mechanics and showed proof of their results; and suppose also this proof explained away the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

In short, what if we realized that all of space-time was predetermined.

How would this affect you?

SilentScope001

06-12-2007, 11:12 PM

Bah. I don't believe in free will already. And there are proofs already that indicate that free will doesn't exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism

And here's a New York Times article about it as well.: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html?ex=1186290000&en=f67863b53437bef0&ei=5087&excamp=mkt_at8

In conclusion, many scientist believe there is no free will. So what? It's not as if we know what we are going to do. So, it's not going to affect me that much. I am fuflling whatever path is laid out before me, but I do not know where I am going, and that is the fun part, no?

Personal idenitiy might be lost, but I'd prefer to redefine it to be the combination of all the variables that place me on the pre-determined path. If any variable change, then I would be a different person totally. Hence, I still keep personal idenity, even if technically I didn't (consciously) choosen my personality.

GarfieldJL

06-12-2007, 11:19 PM

I'd say the scientists were on drugs, simply put I believe we may have possible destinies but we still have to make the choice.

Samuel Dravis

06-12-2007, 11:36 PM

What if tomorrow physicists unified general relativity with quantum mechanics and showed proof of their results; and suppose also this proof explained away the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

In short, what if we realized that all of space-time was predetermined.

How would this affect you?Since the uncertainty principle is random, there's little need for it to be disproven for free will (as it is usually thought of) to be an illusion. Random selection is no more a choice than full-on determinism is.

mimartin

06-12-2007, 11:41 PM

It is an interesting premise. So if I give up on life and decide to become a homeless person on the streets according to this it is already predetermined?

I had to consult the “A New Hope” for the answer:
I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything. No mystical energy field controls my destiny - it's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense.

Dr. Wegner said he thought that exposing free will as an illusion would have little effect on people’s lives or on their feelings of self-worth. Most of them would remain in denial.

Seriously, to answer your question about how this would affect me is I’d have to live like most people in your spoiler. If it was true and there is no freewill, then what is the point to life in the first place? Like the article said if people freaked out over the notion of evolution then how would this affect them? As freewill is the entire premise of religion, religion would be obsolete and meaningless. If it could be proven then the only to options would be denial or the collapse of all civilized society. Of course if it is true then the outcome is enviable, so there is no reason to worry about it.

tk102

06-12-2007, 11:45 PM

I enjoyed that article, SilentScope001. Dr. Weger's quote at the end summarized my expectation:Dr. Wegner said he thought that exposing free will as an illusion would have little effect on people’s lives or on their feelings of self-worth. Most of them would remain in denial.

Samuel, the concept of something being random implies that things can become something they are not already. But if the nature of the universe was fixed in 4 dimensions of space-time, there is just an eternal Now where everything just IS. Things are only random if you look at something change with reference to 3 or less dimensions. If you take all 4 dimensions altogether, then there is no degree of freedom to be random in.

Windu Chi

06-13-2007, 04:24 AM

What if tomorrow physicists unified general relativity with quantum mechanics and showed proof of their results; and suppose also this proof explained away the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.
Heim's Quantize Spacetime Hyperspace theory (http://www.hpcc-space.com/publications/documents/AIAA2006-4608LetterExtndVersionRevised.pdf), seems to show the possible pathway to unifying general relativity with quantum mechanics, tk 102. :)

In short, what if we realized that all of space-time was predetermined.
Well, according to the world's religions, we will be on the pathway to becoming Gods if that was realized.
Every future event would be able to be predicted, in our universe, if it is a closed universe (spherical universe) with positive curvature.
But if, what we call the visible universe, is flat, then at some distance where spacetime, by the action of dark energy push other galaxies away from us at the speed of light, approximated by equation d=3ct c: speed of light, t: the measured age of the visible universe ~ 4 x 10^26 meters (d:visible universe distance to the observable limit) and estimated at about 40 billion light years; other
universes will possibly intersect ours, with possible different or other laws of physics, that will have unknown effects that will make our apparent discovery of the proof of predeterminism void.
But that's how I think; seem to be always unknowns, I suspect. ;)

Also competitiveness will be void, since everybody would already know all the strategies with the application of Game Theory.
Maximum wisdom possibly!
Psychic claims of mental power for seeing the past that link them to knowing the future, will be vindicated.
Also if the Uncertainty Principle is false from the perspective from our visible universe,
then doubt(skepticism) will be replace with sureness(overconfidence).
But even then we are forgetting the infinite multiverses, that we can't imagine the possible implitcations, but my mind almost never stop thinking, about the complexities of existence. ;)

We will be on the pathway to becoming Supreme Beings, probably in the far future fighting for control of a small section of the multiverse. :lol:
How would this affect you?
Well, it won't affect me at all, I'm infinitely open-minded, but I wouldn't want be a god or Supreme Being in future.
I don't want power, all I want is knowledge and understanding of existence. :)

True_Avery

06-13-2007, 06:18 AM

To me, knowing that time is pre-determined would be odd.

Religion: An all mighty uproar of "We are right!" would spread across the world. I don't know about you, but Religious people believe they are right far too often enough. If we learned that time was -actually- predetermined then I believe that would give the idea that a god(s) does exist both spiritually and scientifically. That would possibly break the barrier between science and religion and either unify them or cause another crusade to abolish the atheists, agnostics, scientists, and each other. The odds are quite high, in my opinion, of something like this not going well at all for the world. It takes sometimes the smallest spark to start a huge conflict and we are overdue for some more crusades. Although, it could go the other way and the religious could see it as a scam made by the scientists. I have noted that some people jump directly onto something that might prove the existence of a God, others simply ignore it entirely and choose the "ignorance is bliss" path.

Personally, I do not believe people could comprehend the idea that God actually exists. I believe it to be a belief, even to the most hardcore of the religious. Knowing that a God or Gods -actually- exists would do a variety of things to the human mind, many of which I doubt are pleasant. I know I am going to Get burned for saying that, but oh well. I believe the human mind to be a simply thing not able to truly comprehend something bigger than it.

Science: So, what would this mean for science? I am not entirely sure. The religious side is easy to predict because, well, they tend to take things like a simply book saying Jesus was married to the degree of actually hurting people. For science I could see this being a major breakthrough, but it could go both ways. Discovering time is pre-determined might actually be the thing to unify science and religion together majorly for the first time in history to an extent. Or... the scientists could all get lynched. Both of those are extremes, so I would guess that it would arise conflict between the two groups even moreso than now. It would open doors to many different forms of science and many new discoveries to come, giving us technology such as time travel and ways to bend space and time for travel faster than lightspeed.

Society: As said before in the thread, finding out the space and time was pre-determined could have large scale effects on people. I don't doubt that it could cause large scale depression and an inflow of new people into religion. One of the largest things a discovery like his would do is make People aware of their own mortality. And what do people do when they become afraid of death? Logically, they invent or go to a religion to seek comfort in the belief that what is after death is paradise. Quite frankly, for both atheists and religious... and well all humans alike, the one fear that every being posses is a fear of death, regardless of what they say. The religious hide behind thoughts of heaven, hell, paradise, underworld, etc from a subconscious fear of death. Now, as I hope some of you realize, this does not stop at the religious. Atheists have just as much to fear, even though some would like to believe they are soul-less, emotionless monsters. Logically, what happens after death is nothingness. That is terrifying to all people. Now, we do not think of this day by day or we would literally go insane. But proof on both the religious and scientific side that life is pre-determined would be terrifying in the way it would remind people that they really do not have control over their own life.

Now, going even further. Knowing that time is pre-determined is a shock that can wear off and go away, becoming part of normal everyday life. But what if we actually discovered a way of knowing the pre-determined time? That is a deeply frightening thought. If we knew time, could it be changed if it was pre-determined? Even though that we know it cannot be changed, by knowing it could we try to stop it and even possibly succeed? That is deeply deeply frightening because it then gives human kind the power of a near God. I also suspect that if the public, if people actually knew the time of their own death, how it would happen, and why... then the suicide rate would increase dramatically as well as good will to others and possibly even mass insanity.

As I already stated, the thought of death makes peoples minds recoil. Knowing your own death... literally. Now, I don't want you to read that casually. I want you to really think deeply on that. This is not looking down a gun barrel and knowing you might or are going to die. This is not a person telling you they will kill you tomorrow. This is not sitting on a hospital bed after being told you have 2 weeks to live. Some of those come close, but they do not hold the same power. Knowing your death, 100% knowing and seeing and knowing how, when, and why is happens could do 1 of 2 things:

1# For some it would give life more flavor, give them more incentive to continue living and do their very best to make the lives of those around them better. For some, this happens quite often. People that know they will probably die in 6 years do things for themselves and others that would have never been achieved otherwise. They live life to its fullest and sometimes enjoy and treasure it more than they ever have in their life. For humanity to do this would be incredible. It would give so many more people a want to be better.

2# Insanity. As I said, knowing and "knowing" are different things. For some people, this realization and knowing of their death would most likely cause their minds to cave in. I highly doubt many people can truly comprehend something as awesome and all-powerful as knowing your own death. The suicide rate would increase dramatically. As I also asked before, would knowing time give us the power of a God to change it in a way? I mean, KNOWING IT. If we knew it was pre-determined... pfft, who cared. That can pass... but actually KNOWING TIME ITSELF. Would that break the timeline and change time... actually allowing people free will? Would true, actual true free will make us Gods? I don't know, but it is an interesting thought. People would fall apart, people would go insane, people would not know what to do with their life.

But then a new question arises... if time is pre-determined, would finding out time is pre-determined be pre-determined? If so, then the good will and insanity that would follow would simply be part of the timeline of the world. In the end, we would truly have zero control over ourselves and that thought might still work with the timeline to eventually ending humanity by it collapsing upon itself.

Then another question on both religion and science... could viewing time give us proof of a God or not? That would be the most frightening aspect of that by far. We there is proof, then many scientists would fall apart. If it was proved there is not a God, then Religion would fall apart. That is also a disturbing thought to me.

But, if you think about it, life is pre-determined for us and there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop that. The average person is born, has children, and dies. Besides the child variable, what happens if Life and Death. That is what makes us us alive. Our bodies are what make us animal (even though some silly beings don't like to believe that), and like all animals, all life... we die. We have no control over that fact. We live... and we die. What happens in-between those two is irrelevant in the end to all but other life forms, meaning absolutely nothing in the long run. Earth will out live us, repair what we have done to it, and continue on. How kind you are to your children, how much you love people, or how absolutely cruel you are to people means absolutely nothing in the long run but to the religious and spiritual who believe that life is simply a test run under the rules of Right and Wrong.

I believe some of you will disagree with me, agree with me, and possibly get angry at me for telling you life is irrelevant in the end. That, in my opinion, proves I am right. People who get angry at the thought that life is irrelevant believe that they should leave a mark on the world. Give life to people, give hope and love to people so that they can live on and have children of their own, repeating the cycle all under the influence of how well you did in life. They believe life is precious, all being deserve life, and everybody should have the opportunity to live a full healthy life regardless of what they do. But when all humans are gone, what does any of that matter? All we are really done for this planet is wipe out a large portion of its forests and cause thousands of species to go extinct. We kill animals everyday for our gluttony, destroy forests for our houses and buildings, and pump poison into the air in order to transport from point A to B. Regardless of how much "good" you believe you are doing, you do things every second of your day that affects the world around you for the "bad". Just look around your room at a few things that might have costs the life of other things and come back to me.

Now, that was from a logical standpoint. From a religious standpoint, what we do on Earth is a test. Sure, all humans may eventually be gone one day, but what we do on Earth matters in the end. Morals of right and wrong classify the world in -almost- black and white, those who follow a correct way of life and those who do not. But in the end, even those who do wrong have a chance at redemption. They have a chance at forgiveness. Which is a beautiful thing at face value to be honest. If there is truly something watching over me, I want to know that when I die all that I have done, both good and bad, can be laid out and forgiven. I -want- there to be a paradise when I die. I -want- to be forgiven for what I have done, even if I didn't realize it was wrong at the time. If life truly is a test of ourselves, then I try to be the person I believe a God would truly want me to be. I love the movie Dogma's thoughts that spirituality is the key, not the beliefs thrown on top of it. I will live my life the way I want to live it, not the ways others tell me to from a book. I believe that will be good enough for a God, or Goddess in my case :P

There is so much that could happen if something like this was truly discovered, and we actually had a way to see the timeline of the universe. I think humanity is better off not knowing, traveling the course it is without too much thought on pre-determined time and just focus on what we do best... focusing on the now.

Samuel Dravis

06-13-2007, 08:29 AM

Samuel, the concept of something being random implies that things can become something they are not already. But if the nature of the universe was fixed in 4 dimensions of space-time, there is just an eternal Now where everything just IS. Things are only random if you look at something change with reference to 3 or less dimensions. If you take all 4 dimensions altogether, then there is no degree of freedom to be random in.I know that. I mean that, even if there was 'true' randomness in the universe, it still wouldn't create free will as it's usually thought of, i.e., people making choices. Determinism would be closer to free will than the chance, actually. TK, what do you define free will as?
To me, knowing that time is pre-determined would be odd.

Religion: An all mighty uproar of "We are right!" would spread across the world. I don't know about you, but Religious people believe they are right far too often enough. If we learned that time was -actually- predetermined then I believe that would give the idea that a god(s) does exist both spiritually and scientifically. That would possibly break the barrier between science and religion and either unify them or cause another crusade to abolish the atheists, agnostics, scientists, and each other. The odds are quite high, in my opinion, of something like this not going well at all for the world. It takes sometimes the smallest spark to start a huge conflict and we are overdue for some more crusades. Although, it could go the other way and the religious could see it as a scam made by the scientists. I have noted that some people jump directly onto something that might prove the existence of a God, others simply ignore it entirely and choose the "ignorance is bliss" path.I don't know about that...it seems to me that even if this were discovered, it wouldn't change the status of God as being something unproven. It is in keeping with many religions, it's true, that God does intend for everything to happen as it has done..but they also state there is some sort of true free will. I'd imagine it would cause more trouble for the religious than anyone else, because they'd have to figure out a real explanation about why people are bad.

Then another question on both religion and science... could viewing time give us proof of a God or not? That would be the most frightening aspect of that by far. We there is proof, then many scientists would fall apart. If it was proved there is not a God, then Religion would fall apart. That is also a disturbing thought to me.TBH, if I knew the answer to that question I would be pleased. It's the not knowing that irritates me. I am curious, though, why should scientists fall apart unless they have some preconcieved notions about something they shouldn't... and religion, frankly, deserves falling apart it if it has been saying something it's not sure of and passing it off to its followers as the truth.

Mike Windu

06-13-2007, 09:45 AM

I'd say oh well. But the realization that free will is an illusion would only make me confident in realizing my potential. :p

tk102

06-13-2007, 10:10 AM

I know that. I mean that, even if there was 'true' randomness in the universe, it still wouldn't create free will as it's usually thought of, i.e., people making choices. Determinism would be closer to free will than the chance, actually. TK, what do you define free will as?That's true, you need an agent that is already "free" to have free will. True unfixed randomness will not bring it about, but it does give the free agent "room to move". I guess I'd borrow this definition of free will* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_%28metaphysics%29):"The power or ability to rationally choose and consciously perform actions, at least some of which are not brought about necessarily and inevitably by external circumstances". If randomness is fixed, then there is no degree of freedom. Even if there is a transcendent soul behind the body, it would have no power to affect the body in this predetermined universe.

If we learned that time was -actually- predetermined then I believe that would give the idea that a god(s) does exist both spiritually and scientifically. I'd imagine it would cause more trouble for the religious than anyone else, because they'd have to figure out a real explanation about why people are bad.QFE, SD. Who is responsible for my evil actions? Calvinism anyone?

Knowing that time is pre-determined is a shock that can wear off and go away, becoming part of normal everyday life. But what if we actually discovered a way of knowing the pre-determined time? That is a deeply frightening thought.Really? I think it'd be rather peaceful. We'd all get off the stage and go sit in the audience and watch the world unfold even though we've already seen this movie. I think it would do away with fear, because after all, fear is fear of the unknown, of the pending.

Gargoyle King

06-13-2007, 10:13 AM

In short, what if we realized that all of space-time was predetermined.

How would this affect you?

Ahh, are you referring to "fate", 'cause if you are (call me old-fashioned) but i believe in fate as you can't pre-determine your choices and how they will affect the course of your life.

Ferc Kast

06-13-2007, 10:23 AM

What if tomorrow physicists unified general relativity with quantum mechanics and showed proof of their results; and suppose also this proof explained away the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

In short, what if we realized that all of space-time was predetermined.

How would this affect you?
Yes. But, what if free will isn't an illusion?

We do have agency, the power to determine our own actions. I.E. Posting on LucasForus as opposed to another website, listening to music we like, read a book instead of being on the computer, etc.

Jae Onasi

06-13-2007, 10:37 AM

Well, if we didn't have free will, Calvin would feel vindicated. :) The pre-destination/free will discussion has been going on a very long time in Christian circles--how does an all-knowing God allow us free will? Can we really have free will if God knows what good/evil we're going to commit?

If everything were predestined, it would mean that things like evil and hell (for those who believe it) were also predestined. A God who is infinitely good would not force someone to commit evil. That is out of character. Since no one is forced to commit evil, there must be free will involved.

I'm only addressing the theistic side. I couldn't tell you how atheists would handle this concept. :)

SilentScope001

06-13-2007, 10:49 AM

Yes. But, what if free will isn't an illusion?

We do have agency, the power to determine our own actions. I.E. Posting on LucasForus as opposed to another website, listening to music we like, read a book instead of being on the computer, etc.

Proof? ;)

The Scientists in that article seems to have scientific arguments to back their beliefs. But if you like to believe that we do have a "prime mover" self that only moves his or herself, and nothing else...well, so be it.

If everything were predestined, it would mean that things like evil and hell (for those who believe it) were also predestined. A God who is infinitely good would not force someone to commit evil. That is out of character. Since no one is forced to commit evil, there must be free will involved.

Alternatively, God may not even control who we are, but we still have no free will. We may not have free will, but if we are randomly determined rather than having God dictate our destiny (see the Random Intelligent Creation Engine I written about a while back), then it showcases that God may still be good and that God in fact loves Good and that God in fact hates Evil, and that God does not create Evil, but rather, it is the RICE that God do not know how it works, and hence we are following whatever the RICE tells us to do.

As Saumel Darvis said, the world does not need to have someone dictate to us what is right and wrong...it could all be randomly generated. And RICE could act as a reasonable subsitute for Free Will, avoiding most tough problems associated with the Problem of Evil.

Darth InSidious

06-13-2007, 12:24 PM

What if tomorrow physicists unified general relativity with quantum mechanics and showed proof of their results; and suppose also this proof explained away the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

In short, what if we realized that all of space-time was predetermined.

How would this affect you?
Ignore it and get on with my life.

It's probably the same as all the other sensationalist bits of scientific theory that have flitted briefly in the limelight in recent years.

Even if it were true, any response I had to it would be predetermined, predictable and therefore not worthy of comment anyway.

So generally I think that COPULATION it's a load of small rubber things that go 'nyik-nyik. Nyeeeeeee-yik'.

Totenkopf

06-13-2007, 02:02 PM

Frankly, I rather doubt that science will ever to be able to prove determinism. It makes for nice parlor scenarios, but doesn't seem realistic. What we do know is that people are confronted by choices daily and how they respond is a reflection of their grasp on the world around them. Determism smacks of the same cop-out as "the devil made me do it", a complete abrogation of personal responsibility.

SilentScope001

06-13-2007, 02:07 PM

Frankly, I rather doubt that science will ever to be able to prove determinism. It makes for nice parlor scenarios, but doesn't seem realistic. What we do know is that people are confronted by choices daily and how they respond is a reflection of their grasp on the world around them. Determism smacks of the same cop-out as "the devil made me do it", a complete abrogation of personal responsibility.

But what causes people to make those choices? Is it due to the fact that they are "free"? Or is it because they are controlled by other factors, like the enviroment, how they are raised, what they are told is right and wrong, your genetic information, etc.

If a person was born in Germany, and because of his borning in Germany and having German nationalism, he joined the Nazis, then did he control he joining the Nazis. Sure, he made the choice, but he did it because he loved Germany and he loved Germany because he was born in Germany and was told to have nationalistc pride. Now, if that said person was born in America, he would have American nationalism, have nationalistic pride in America, and join the US Army in battling the Nazis. Here, the only variable that mattered in what side this person would join (Nazis or USA) is basically based on where he was born (and therefore what side he feels affinity towards)...then is he truly in control?

And you still have personal responsiblity. Even if you have no control over what you do, you still have done it. That will not be taken away at all.

Just trying to figure out other people's viewpoints, just all.

Ray Jones

06-13-2007, 02:24 PM

According to chaos theory and chaos sciences everything is deterministic. So is every process in our brain. No matter how much we'd like to have "free will and fate", it won't happen. All the things happening to a person are related to all the things that have happened all the bazagillions of years before. Already with the Big Bang it was clear Ray will make the girls happy and he will die in an excessive threesome. Heisenberg does not contradict this.

But I don't care about it. Knowing the truth gives me the calm. Oh wait. I could not think otherwise anyway. :)

Jae Onasi

06-13-2007, 02:48 PM

DI, that's sure one way to attract all the randy guys to read your post. ;P.

Windu Chi

06-13-2007, 03:21 PM

If randomness is fixed, then there is no degree of freedom.
If the universe is predetermined, it's complex structure and entangle interconections will have to be set by an outside intelligent influence.
The predetermined universe intricate settings of the iterated motions, of the matter, energy with it's interactions of the forces gravity and electromagnetism, will have to be already preprogramed by this outside intelligent influence.
But of course a infinite regression of intelligent influences.
If randomness is fixed, then the matter and energy interactions in the 3-D space with the time flow settings, because of matter and energy effect on distorting of time and space. Will have to be preprogramed, by the external intelligence.

So, the proof of God!
But that is already accepted by me, but I believe because of my infinite open-mindness, in infinite Supreme Beings, not just one.

No degree of freedom, we probably won't be obviously be aware, since that can be the case now, no free will, I think we alone are far to insignificant, to comprehend it's implications, in relation with the vastness of our visible universe and it's interactions of matter and energy, in comparison, to the preset motions of the pool ball like interactions of matter and energy with the two dominate known obvious forces of nature, gravity and electromagnetism.

But conceiving the possibility of awareness of having or not having free will, is the big question.
But there always is unknowns to ponder.
Even if there is a transcendent soul behind the body would have no power to affect the body in this predetermined universe.
If the soul is transcendent it will probably be linked to a external intelligence, that intelligence will probably control what the soul or any souls will do.
That intelligence will give the power to the soul or souls.

But what do you mean by, "no power to affect the body"? :)
The soul seem to have no power over the body anyway.
It don't give us powers like the Force.
But, I'm not going to ruled that out completely, but this soul gives us nothing, it seems, from present inspection.

Really? I think it'd be rather peaceful. We'd all get off the stage and go sit in the audience and watch the world unfold even though we've already seen this movie. I think it would do away with fear, because after all, fear is fear of the unknown, of the pending.

I think it will be a small disturbance in society, skeptics will be devastated, their doubt of local (to our visible universe) apparent ultimate knowledge will be void, the religious, won't care, since they have transcended beliefs of least one Supreme Being, out of the infinite Supreme Beings, that I and some others already believe to exist out there in the infinite existence.
Atheists will have to accept the existence of at least one of the infinite Supreme Beings, since predeterminism, would imply a biased influence, that because of that proof and evidence that all events are already set, they will have accept that only a outside intelligence can have the ability to set the pre program events, of something as complex as a universe.
I think Mathematicians, will accept the realization of predeterminism: with predeterminism some intelligence would've to had set the fixed randomness settings, so to them it will come the prospect of intricate order, full prediction ( if the Uncertainity Principle no longer apply ), full meaning to the universe, that will be very pleasing to them.
Philosopher are the open-minded, so no effect at all, either way.
Well, they should be, the open-minded.
Only a strong affect on a philosopher poisoned with skepticism, if predeterminism is proved and the Uncertainity Principle no longer apply.

The normal layman or laywomen, probably won't make no difference, since they won't be concern with such matters.
Their concern will only be in their small sphere of influcence and the region of their life.

Already with the Big Bang it was clear Ray will make the girls happy and he will die in an excessive threesome.
Heh, Heh!
Now, that's my kind of party! :D

Totenkopf

06-13-2007, 03:30 PM

But what causes people to make those choices? Is it due to the fact that they are "free"? Or is it because they are controlled by other factors, like the enviroment, how they are raised, what they are told is right and wrong, your genetic information, etc.

If a person was born in Germany, and because of his borning in Germany and having German nationalism, he joined the Nazis, then did he control he joining the Nazis. Sure, he made the choice, but he did it because he loved Germany and he loved Germany because he was born in Germany and was told to have nationalistc pride. Now, if that said person was born in America, he would have American nationalism, have nationalistic pride in America, and join the US Army in battling the Nazis. Here, the only variable that mattered in what side this person would join (Nazis or USA) is basically based on where he was born (and therefore what side he feels affinity towards)...then is he truly in control?

And you still have personal responsiblity. Even if you have no control over what you do, you still have done it. That will not be taken away at all.

Just trying to figure out other people's viewpoints, just all.

If you have no control over your actions (like a figure in a story), then you bear no responsibility for those actions. That responsibility belongs to the puppet master who pulled your strings in the first place. You didn't make the choice, it was made for you.

The fact that your list of choices in life might be proscribed by your circumstances does not relieve you of any responsibility for the choices you end up making. Now the interesting question would be that if your are basically mentally retarded and burn down a house, to what extent are you responsible for your actions. Arguably in this case your mind is too limited to make reasonable decisions. Is "God/god/RICE" responsible? Or just society?

To take your example, what then of the conscientous objectors/draft dodgers? They were Americans or Germans that probably loved their countries as well. Yet they did not make the same choices as those in your example. Did they have "free will"? Same goes for the German underground.

Who/what exactly is it that you thinks "controls" our destinies or choices in life? And, if they are the ones that decide what we do, how can we really be responsible for any actions commited by the bodies our minds/souls inhabit? Why are we not merely along for the ride?

tk102

06-13-2007, 03:50 PM

A couple points on the religious bits:

- Although predeterminism is compatible with the notion of an omniscient God, I don't see how proving predeterminism proves God's existence. I think that is still a matter of faith.

- If there is no free will, what happens to the theist's concept of a soul? What purpose is there for it? It cannot act freely through the body. It cannot act freely through the mind. What is the soul doing? Why even postulate that one exists?

- The concept of salvation and damnation no longer makes any sense in the framework of predeterminism. Before I was even born, before my parents were born, my fate was already written. So where is the purpose of worship?

On the topic of personal responsibility, what difference does it make who we blame? It's all predetermined what we think anyway right? :xp: That is to say, or act of blaming is also predetermined, and so are the consequences we assign to the guilty. The only practical view is to happily forget predeterminism and get on with life as we know it. The more I think about this thread, the more it blows my little mind.

The only comfortable religious viewpoint I can see in this framework is that of monism.

SilentScope001

06-13-2007, 04:21 PM

If you have no control over your actions (like a figure in a story), then you bear no responsibility for those actions. That responsibility belongs to the puppet master who pulled your strings in the first place. You didn't make the choice, it was made for you.

Then we are using different definitions. I don't think choice is needed for responsiblity at all.

The Definition of Responsible I Use (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/responsible):
3. Being a source or cause.

If you caused something, you are responsible for it. Someone may cause you to cause something, but it is your responsiblity, since you caused it. That other thing may also be responsible, but you play a role as well.

The fact that your list of choices in life might be proscribed by your circumstances does not relieve you of any responsibility for the choices you end up making.

Of course not. You are responsible for anything that happens because of what you do, what you cause. Then is there a reason for you objecting to this, then?

To take your example, what then of the conscientous objectors/draft dodgers? They were Americans or Germans that probably loved their countries as well. Yet they did not make the same choices as those in your example. Did they have "free will"? Same goes for the German underground.

But then why would anyone join the Underground?

Sticking with the Nazi example, let say this person who was born in Germany got exposed to liteature that talks about the glory of freedom, of America, etc. Reading this book changed him. Or what if he had friends, or parents, or even a preacher who told him that freedom was good? All these variables caused this person to join with the Underground.

If it wasn't for these variables, if it wasn't for him listening to messages about freedom and being told that the Nazis were evil, he would have joined the Nazis and be very, very happy.

There is still no free will involved. You are still controlled by outside sources.

Who/what exactly is it that you thinks "controls" our destinies or choices in life? And, if they are the ones that decide what we do, how can we really be responsible for any actions commited by the bodies our minds/souls inhabit? Why are we not merely along for the ride?

God. Or, for the more atheistically-inclined, the Big Bang and the Cosmic Strings. You are responsible because you are a tool for the Big Bang/God. You caused many events to happen. You compel people to do stuff or not to do stuff. You cause something, hence you are responsible. You do not need to have control over anything to be responsible.

Let take the burning down of a house. Now, this mentally retarded person who cannot think burnt down the house. He had no control over burning down the house, and he could be forgiven for doing such a thing. But, he was responsible for doing it, since had he not been at the house, he would have not burnt it down.

Why are we not merely along for the ride? I'd used Jae's view that just because the Intelligent Designer has a belief of what is going to happen, but he will not going to stop us from taking the test just because he knows the results. And RICE works really well because God does not know what will happen, and therefore he has to place us on the Earth to figure out what RICE has generated.
===
EDIT: If you really want to blame God/RICE for all the problems in the world due to determinism, you can, but "evil" is a point of view, and keep in mind that even for 'good' Gods, benevloent dictatorships are usually not that pretty at all.

GarfieldJL

06-13-2007, 06:47 PM

Even according to religion people have free will at least according to Judaism and Christianity. How do you think people can sin, if everything is predetermined why would people sin? Seriously, Free will exists, certain events can be predetermined, but people still have the ability to choose their own fates to greater or lesser extent even if they don't necessarily realize it.

tk102

06-13-2007, 06:52 PM

Um, the point of the thread is to posit a hypothetical proof that the future is predetermined -- and ask how you would react to that.

GarfieldJL

06-13-2007, 07:12 PM

I'd just think the scientists had gone off the deep end or the next year or so they'd find evidence that free will does exist.

Jae Onasi

06-13-2007, 07:27 PM

If everything was predetermined, I'd probably quit trying to be such a good girl. :xp:

GarfieldJL

06-13-2007, 07:29 PM

Also I could think it was a way to excuse people for committing violent crimes saying it was predetermined and not their fault...

True_Avery

06-13-2007, 07:38 PM

Well, a God aside, do we really have free will at all?

I mean, we grow up as children, then puberty basically makes our bodies infinitely more powerful than our mind, urges take over, we fall in love, etc. What control do we really have over all of that? If you look at us from an animal point of view, we still have animal instincts, urges, and wants. We are controlled mainly by gluttony and an urge to be wanted, so we randomly fall in love with people we see as a good match for us. In most people, the urge for sex controls portions of the mind no matter how hard to try to ignore it. We find other people attractive, others repulsive, and are even controlled to an extent by our society and media. What free will is in any of that but the idea that we can consider ourselves individuals? We can think for ourselves, sure, but can we all say and do what we want all the time? America may be the land of the free, but go up to a bunch of gang members and cuss them out and see just how long that freedom keeps you alive. Shoot someone under the thought that it is free and see how long you stay out of jail/prison. That pretty much goes under the ideal of common sense, but I think you get the point.

We are controlled by everything we say and do, and controlled by the society we live in. Even if we find out time has already been set by a God or not, what does it matter? I don't see how that changes anything serious in the long run. Despite what people do, they will still be controlled by fear, love, instinct, etc. Maybe finding it out will erase fear of the unknown, but knowing that time is pre-determined still does not prove there is an afterlife so the fear of death would still be present. All our lives are in the control of those around us, and those around us can choose to make our life better or end it completely.

I am content knowing that I have no real control over my life in the long run, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying life.I hate sex and don't want children, so I guess that makes me unique in some strange way, which is at least a nice thought I hang onto to show I at least have some individuality.

Totenkopf

06-13-2007, 10:01 PM

Um, the point of the thread is to posit a hypothetical proof that the future is predetermined -- and ask how you would react to that.

In short, I'd not worry about anything I did b/c I would know it wasn't really my fault. That I was basically an incarnation of someone else's thought processes, and as such, had no control over anything. After that.....I'd go on a holy terror and "rape/pillage/plunder", knowing that morality had no real meaning (I'm just a puppet on a string, afterall) ;) Seriously, I'd just play out the rest of my life till it ended. There's really little else to do after making such a discovery. I'm guessing that unless I missed something, that's pretty much what you'd do as well.

Also, I wasn't quite clear on how discovering that the world is of a predetermined nature means that we would also possess the knowledge of what took/takes/will take place, rather than just that it's predetermined by factors beyond our control.

Then we are using different definitions. I don't think choice is needed for responsiblity at all.

The Definition of Responsible I Use (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/responsible):
3. Being a source or cause.

I would agree we are coming at this from different philosophical points. I disagree with your notion that chioce is immaterial. Also, taking your definition of responsibility, it could be argued that a gun used to end someone's life is "responsible" b/c it was involved in the act. If life is predetermined, ie we've no say in how it plays out, then we are essentially the gun and talk of responsibility (as TK suggests) is meaningless.

But then why would anyone join the Underground?
Sticking with the Nazi example, let say this person who was born in Germany got exposed to liteature that talks about the glory of freedom, of America, etc. Reading this book changed him. Or what if he had friends, or parents, or even a preacher who told him that freedom was good? All these variables caused this person to join with the Underground.
If it wasn't for these variables, if it wasn't for him listening to messages about freedom and being told that the Nazis were evil, he would have joined the Nazis and be very, very happy.
There is still no free will involved. You are still controlled by outside sources.

Because, perhaps, they chose to. Much like others would've simply left Germany or maybe become communists, etc... An idea doesn't force you to choose it. What you decide to read/listen to helps you decide what path you will take. If you cave into peer pressure, while others do not, that is on your head. Being informed may help you make seemingly more intelligent decisions, but doesn't make the decisions for you.

Samuel Dravis

06-13-2007, 11:29 PM

I guess I'd borrow this definition of free will*:

"The power or ability to rationally choose and consciously perform actions, at least some of which are not brought about necessarily and inevitably by external circumstances".Interesting. I would have previously agreed with you on this, but after a bit of thought it seems contradictory; it wants to rationally choose between options, but the decision is not necessarily decided in a rational manner... To me, it seems that at some point external circumstances are aren't used in the decision, and if circumstances don't matter, what's the difference between a 'free will' choice and a random one?

tk102

06-13-2007, 11:52 PM

it wants to rationally choose between options, but the decision is not necessarily decided in a rational manner...I don't follow. The person with free will chooses according to his/her own whim, rational or not, he or she is the ultimate source of the choice.

To me, it seems that at some point external circumstances are aren't used in the decision, and if circumstances don't matter, what's the difference between a 'free will' choice and a random one?There's no such thing as a random "choice" because choice implies a chooser. If you mean to suggest there is no difference between an externally caused act (that is, caused by unfixed randomness) and the act chosen by a free agent, I would argue that there is. The free agent has control over the choice.

Now to the outside observer, there may be no discernible distinction. Indeed the actors (you and I) may not even be able to tell the distinction. We may *believe* we have free will and everything seems to suggest we do, but if our consciousness and especially our volition is caused by unfixed random events, we wouldn't know.

So in summary I see the two scenarios you describe as distinct and non-contradictory: both suggest a non-determined universe, but one has agents acting with free wills and the other has agents (if you can still call them that) only reacting to random events.

Samuel Dravis

06-14-2007, 01:03 AM

I don't follow. The person with free will chooses according to his/her own whim, rational or not, he or she is the ultimate source of the choice.But if you're not rationally choosing between the options, what exactly are you doing? Since the definition says that free will must include rational decisionmaking, how is simple whim rational? If it is not rational, is it still free will?

"The power or ability to rationally choose and consciously perform actions, at least some of which are not brought about necessarily and inevitably by external circumstances."

There's no such thing as a random "choice" because choice implies a chooser. If you mean to suggest there is no difference between an externally caused act (that is, caused by unfixed randomness) and the act chosen by a free agent, I would argue that there is. The free agent has control over the choice.

Now to the outside observer, there may be no discernible distinction. Indeed the actors (you and I) may not even be able to tell the distinction. We may *believe* we have free will and everything seems to suggest we do, but if our consciousness and especially our volition is caused by unfixed random events, we wouldn't know.

I would say that, in the absence of any outside world, there can be no expression of will, free, determined or otherwise. If someone were to choose something completely without regard to reality, then that choice has the same value as a true random occurrence and there is no way to distinguish between them. If so, what's the point in saying we have it when it doesn't help us anyway? How can you hold someone responsible for something when they can't make a choice based on the relevant factors (reality)?

So in summary I see the two scenarios you describe as distinct and non-contradictory: both suggest a non-determined universe, but one has agents acting with free wills and the other has agents (if you can still call them that) only reacting to random events.I'd have to say that, if there's no distinguishable characteristics separating the random universe from the free-willed one, they are equivalent in practice. This obviously doesn't help out any of the problems caused by the free-will issue, unfortunately - to quote Asimov - "Insufficient data for a meaningful answer." :p

tk102

06-14-2007, 02:13 AM

But if you're not rationally choosing between the options, what exactly are you doing? Since the definition says that free will must include rational decisionmaking, how is simple whim rational? If it is not rational, is it still free will?
So you're asserting that if you act out of emotion, you are out of control and have given up your free will? So the rational man is more free than the irrational? Seems to me either you're free or you're not. I hesitate to embrace the idea of a grayscale here.

If someone were to choose something completely without regard to reality, then that choice has the same value as a true random occurrence and there is no way to distinguish between them. If so, what's the point in saying we have it when it doesn't help us anyway? ...
I'd have to say that, if there's no distinguishable characteristics separating the random universe from the free-willed one, they are equivalent in practice. They may be equivalent in practice, but they have distinct ontologies and our own nature is quite different in the two universes.

But upshot of what you're saying kind of goes back to the idea of "let's forget this and get on with life." :p

Ray Jones

06-14-2007, 06:55 AM

Frankly, I rather doubt that science will ever to be able to prove determinism. It makes for nice parlor scenarios, but doesn't seem realistic. What we do know is that people are confronted by choices daily and how they respond is a reflection of their grasp on the world around them.The choices and opportunities people encounter are all results to other choices that have been made, and results of former happenings and events. It's the principle of causality. Everything is a result and has a result.
As I see it, science has yet to prove that there is something that happens totally random and without any cause.

If I look at the surface of a lake it's structure appears to be totally random but is rather the result of the movement of who knows how much water molecules, surroundings, fish farts, earth rotation, the moon, and so much more. The dependencies are so complex, impossible to comprehend, but still: not one single wave on that lake's surface is truly of random nature, neither its actual state, nor its way of creation, nor its future development.
And in fact it all is just a huge bunch of atoms - neutrons, electrons, and protons - quarks - interacting with each other.
And we are made of the same stuff like the lake or everything else that exists. Thus we are bound to the same set of laws and rules. Best example: gravitation.

Free will is simply non existent, everything we decide to do or not to do, every train of thought is a process in our brain which is a result of all other thoughts we had before. Memories, experiences, ideas - all just a lake's surface.

Does that mean everything is predefined, made up by one small green gnome with beard sitting somewhere in a small room and a somewhat questionable sense a humour but an obviously superb understanding of the universe? NO.

It does mean: without who-knows-what no matter, without matter no gravity, without gravity no stars, without stars no elements, without elements no molecules, without molecules no life, without life no brain, without brain no thought.

Determism smacks of the same cop-out as "the devil made me do it", a complete abrogation of personal responsibility.No it doesn't, it merely just states that every cause has a result, which will again cause another result, and so on.

Determinism and generative processes

In emergentist or generative philosophy of cognitive sciences and evolutionary psychology, free will does not exist. However an illusion of free will is experienced due to the generation of infinite behaviour from the interaction of finite-deterministic set of rules and parameters. Thus the unpredictability of the emerging behaviour from deterministic processes leads to a perception of free will, even though free will as an ontological entity does not exist.

As an illustration, the strategy board-games chess and Go have rigorous rules in which no information (such as cards' face-values) is hidden from either player and no random events (such as dice-rolling) happen within the game. Yet, chess and especially Go with its extremely simple deterministic rules, can still have an extremely large number of unpredictable moves. By analogy, emergentists or generativists suggest that the experience of free will emerges from the interaction of finite rules and deterministic parameters that generate infinite and unpredictable behaviour. Yet, if all these events were accounted for, and there were a known way to evaluate these events, the seemingly unpredictable behaviour would become predictable.

Darth InSidious

06-14-2007, 10:27 AM

DI, that's sure one way to attract all the randy guys to read your post. ;P.
Stop going off-copic!

Topic! I said topic!

:xp:

SilentScope001

06-14-2007, 11:11 AM

I would agree we are coming at this from different philosophical points. I disagree with your notion that chioce is immaterial. Also, taking your definition of responsibility, it could be argued that a gun used to end someone's life is "responsible" b/c it was involved in the act. If life is predetermined, ie we've no say in how it plays out, then we are essentially the gun and talk of responsibility (as TK suggests) is meaningless.

Alright, we'll agree to disagree. While I antipcate the gun's possiblity, the thing that differnates us from the gun is that the gun does not know anything at all, while we humans do. Hence, that makes us a bit interesting.

Because, perhaps, they chose to. Much like others would've simply left Germany or maybe become communists, etc... An idea doesn't force you to choose it. What you decide to read/listen to helps you decide what path you will take. If you cave into peer pressure, while others do not, that is on your head. Being informed may help you make seemingly more intelligent decisions, but doesn't make the decisions for you.

As Ray Jones. Plus, why would someone choose anything? Because they were informed that the choice is the right one, wherever, whenever. If they were nobody that told them something was wrong and they still think it is wrong, then maybe it was just genetics or the subconsisus, that told them it is wrong, and that person is still not free. But, yeah, we do see different views.

I'd have to say that, if there's no distinguishable characteristics separating the random universe from the free-willed one, they are equivalent in practice. This obviously doesn't help out any of the problems caused by the free-will issue, unfortunately - to quote Asimov - "Insufficient data for a meaningful answer."

The thing is, actually, a free-willed universe would have no reason, to well do anything. A random universe would make a random choice, but the free-willed universe would have no reason to make any choice. Still, who says the free-willed universe has to be reasonable?

The main difference between a universe with free will instead of a universe with random is whom gets to choose. And what they choose? Well, they get to choose what random limitations to place on their free will (so that they have a reason to choose), and then after that, get to use their free will however they want. I randomly choose, say, a doctrine, and from there, I will do whatever it will take to protect that doctrine. In the begining, it starts off looking at Random, with that person making a random choice, but once he does it, he sticks with that random choice and framework, and do whatever he wants from that choice, so it is no longer appears to be Random, but rather controlled by "Prime Movers".

Totenkopf

06-14-2007, 03:32 PM

While I antipcate the gun's possiblity, the thing that differnates us from the gun is that the gun does not know anything at all, while we humans do. Hence, that makes us a bit interesting.

I don't disagree that we "seem" to know something, but then so do some characters in a novel (at least within the context of their existence). Yet, if we, like them, have no control over what happens to us (ie our actions and outcomes are predetermined), then we are about as interesting as that gun b/c all our actions were chosen for us. There is merely the illusion of seeming interesting.

If they were nobody that told them something was wrong and they still think it is wrong, then maybe it was just genetics or the subconsisus, that told them it is wrong, and that person is still not free.

If people cannot override their "programming", are they even interesting at all? If they can make choices, limited or otherwise, they still retain some form of freedom of movememnt. Just because people are free to make choices doesn't mean there can't be predictable consequences. What isn't guaranteed is what the response will be to their choices. If I point a gun to your head and tell you to give me your money or I'll kill you....there are multiple ways for that scenario to play out. Your freedom to chose does not predetermine EXACTLY which result will play out. I could let you go, rough you up or even blow your brains out. That limited menu of options doesn't remove the fact that you can choose from an equally limited menu of responses to my action.

@Ray--perhaps I should have typed "predeterminism", as in the sense that everything I do in life is following a script generated elsewhere (perhaps by your "little gnome" ;) ). That smacks of "the devil made me do it" (ie it wasn't MY choice, rather someone else's). I do wonder, though, if the concept of free will thrown around isn't just being confused with the ability to control the outcome in one's favor. Just b/c you have "free will" doesn't necessitate you getting the result you want.

Windu Chi

06-14-2007, 11:05 PM

The choices and opportunities people encounter are all results to other choices that have been made, and results of former happenings and events. It's the principle of causality. Everything is a result and has a result.

That's classical physics, Quantum Mechanics offer other possibilities: intelligent beings from other universes, biasing the principle of causality in our universe, from their perspective, since we probably won't be easily aware, of their influence. :)
As I see it, science has yet to prove that there is something that happens totally random and without any cause.
Looking for mathematical proof for every single thing for something as complex as a whole universe seem to be a fool's errand.
But there always seem to be unknowns, that will probably make it possible. :)
If I look at the surface of a lake it's structure appears to be totally random but is rather the result of the movement of who knows how much water molecules, surroundings, fish farts, earth rotation, the moon, and so much more. The dependencies are so complex, impossible to comprehend, but still: not one single wave on that lake's surface is truly of random nature, neither its actual state, nor its way of creation, nor its future development.
And in fact it all is just a huge bunch of atoms - neutrons, electrons, and protons - quarks - interacting with each other.
It's a chaotic system! :)
And we are made of the same stuff like the lake or everything else that exists. Thus we are bound to the same set of laws and rules. Best example: gravitation.
And we are linked on a quantum scale, and we may be linked through our consciouses, by way of information producing electron, photon interactions. :)

Free will is simply non existent, everything we decide to do or not to do, every train of thought is a process in our brain which is a result of all other thoughts we had before. Memories, experiences, ideas - all just a lake's surface.
"Other thoughts we had before".
That sound like a CTC (Closed Timelike Curve), of information exchange.
Or, a spacetime hyperboloid shape distortion: time machine.
Well, some cultures believe history will repeat it's self literally. :)

Does that mean everything is predefined, made up by one small green gnome with beard sitting somewhere in a small room and a somewhat questionable sense a humour but an obviously superb understanding of the universe? NO.
I'm of the opinion of a infinite progression, of wise Supreme Beings with each with some specific limited knowledge of the infinite existence, that other Supreme Beings not aware of, but that's my opinion, Ray. :)
But it still maybe something that exist out there that is even greater than our society's definition of Supreme Beings, something that none of us have yet to conceive of.

No it doesn't, it merely just states that every cause has a result, which will again cause another result, and so on.

Repeating histories, in a closed universe with positive curvature.
The the possibilty I have. :)
Possibly!
Like a billard ball can come around again in the same closed trace path, by predictable ordererd force interaction, in a close system, only closed to matter or mass exchange, open to energy exchange.
Like for example, by shaking a circular container back and forth, in a circular then reversable motion, to cause the ball to circle it's previous trace path in the opposite direction.

A universe with matter and energy configurations that alow time to flow back and forth in inifinite oscillation cycles, at set point in the future of the universe, like Big Crunch scenarios.

Now in a universe with repeating histories, it seems to be no free will, from the perspective of specific intelligent beings, since everything they do in their world volume will be repeated, unless anyone of them somehow become aware of the info, from a outside source.
Which of course, will bias fatalism, in the open universe with repeating histories.
And the outside source will, start to set (be resposible) new events in motion in the open universe it is in contact with; from the perpective of the intelligence beings things would seem to be preordain, but they probably won't be aware of that knowledge, only the ones in contact with outside source.
The ones in contact with the outside source will probably have free will.
I say probably, because it always seem to be unknowns, like yet another unknown influence, that will bias that apparent free will, by influencing the outside source, so on ad infinitum.
I guess you can interpret this as people who claim they are in contact with God or other gods.

world volume: all matter past and future influences in 3-D space and time; spacetime volume.

fatalism:A philosophical doctrine holding that all events are predetermined in advance for all time and human beings are powerless to change them.

Darth InSidious

06-15-2007, 08:46 AM

I'm no expert, but I thought quantum physics said that the universe is essentially random and unpredictable?

Ray Jones

06-15-2007, 08:59 AM

No it doesn't. If at all it merely says that for us it behaves "strange" if you go really close to the things in the universe.

A universe with matter and energy configurations that alow time to flow back and forth in inifinite oscillation cycles, at set point in the future of the universe, like Big Crunch scenarios.Time does not oscillate. Past, present, future, everything exists altogether. And seen from the now, past events are unchangeable and result inevitably and unalterable in everything that is happening right now, what again will cause future results. And since the present and unalterable now is the unchangeable past of the future (inevitably and unalterable) now, future results can't be influenced in any way from within our three dimensions. It looks like, but is impossible. We just happen to perceive in fragments what the past "currently" causes in the now within our 3D reality.

Samuel Dravis

06-15-2007, 10:05 AM

So you're asserting that if you act out of emotion, you are out of control and have given up your free will? So the rational man is more free than the irrational? Seems to me either you're free or you're not. I hesitate to embrace the idea of a grayscale here.Not exactly. A person could possess emotions and still have the ability to be rational. Their decisions could be based on the information available to them.

However, with this free will concept, the decision is explicitly not based on anything in reality, and I don't think that this 'choice' is free at all - you still wouldn't have any real control over the decision because you have no information to base your decision on. If you ask a blind man whether red or yellow is lighter, what's he supposed to say?

If this is indeed how free will is supposed to work, then it doesn't resolve any of the free will problems. Who's to blame for the evil they cause? No one, because they lack the very ability to make a moral choice. They simply can't take context into account.

This is exactly the same practical effect as the other two options, determinism and true randomness.

Rather depressing! :p

They may be equivalent in practice, but they have distinct ontologies and our own nature is quite different in the two universes.I agree.

But upshot of what you're saying kind of goes back to the idea of "let's forget this and get on with life." :p
Yeah. :p

Windu Chi

06-15-2007, 11:00 AM

Time does not oscillate. Past, present, future, everything exists altogether.
I'm saying hypothetical, Ray. :)
But this the Big Crunch theory, fate for a closed universe lacking the repulsive effect of dark energy, gravity eventually stops the expansion of the universe, after which it starts to contract until all matter in the universe collapses to a point, then began again with a big bang; oscillatory universe.
Also I'm talking about oscillating matter and energy, with specific directional motion configurations of high density concentrations or vacuum energy, or negative energy(to cause negative curvature of spacetime, a apple go up in a gravitational field), one can possibly oscillate time back and forth, like a time machine. :)
To create a Closed Timelike Curve (CTC).
By way of this field equation Guv=8GpiTuv/c^4
or this field equation Ruv-1/2guvR+Aguv=8piGTuv/c^4 from General Relativity.
Where Guv is the geometry of spacetime; Ruv is the Ricci curvature tensor of a spacetime geometrical configuration metric; G is Newton's gravitational constant, c is the speed of light or as Einstein called it the speed of time; R is the the Ricci curvature scalar or average curvature of the spacetime geometrical configuration, Tuv is
Stress matter and energy or the Stress-Energy Tensor, A is the cosmological constant or energy density of the vacuum, guv is the general metric tensor.

And seen from the now, past events are unchangeable and result inevitably and unalterable in everything that is happening right now, what again will cause future results.
Of course seen from now, unless somebody construct a CTC(time machine).
And since the present and unalterable now is the unchangeable past of the future (inevitably and unalterable) now, future results can't be influenced in any way from within our three dimensions.
If a Time Machine(CTC) is created, then the present now, future later, and past then, can be alter. :)

It looks like, but is impossible. We just happen to perceive in fragments what the past "currently" causes in the now within our 3D reality.
Nothing is impossible, Ray! ;)
If the, past then, present now and future later, is already linked, I'm of the opinion we possibly can.
I suspect, since today is yesterday's future, I believe there is a possible way to perceive in complete fragments what the past "currently" causes in the now.

Tensor: pressure and stress vector matrix.
Metric:A function of a topological space that gives, for any two points in the space, a value equal to the distance between them.
Stress: force that produces strain on a physical body.
Strain: deformation of a physical body under the action of applied forces.
Scalar: A variable quantity that cannot be resolved into vector components in n-dimensional space(or 3-D space).
or relating to a directionless magnitude (such as mass or speed etc.).